Alex Korell
ENG 101.13
Mary Wendt
A1
March 6, 2008
My proposal for my paper is going to be about the economy.
1.Why the economy is so close to a recession and why has it taken so long for anyone to do anything to fix it?
I know that many people think we are already in a recession and many people say that we are not in a recession.I know that Michigan is in a recession.I know that Congress just passed Bush’s $150 billion Economic Stimulus package.I also know that we have a $12 trillion economy with a $9 trillion deficit.I would like to know why it has taken so long for anyone to admit there is a problem and why it has taken so long to do anything about it.I would like to find out where all the money collected in taxes goes and why there is no money available.I would like to know where the government sends all of its money.I would like to learn what the candidates plan to do to fix the economy if elected.I am interested in this topic because I am a business major and the economy directly affects every American, regardless of if they think it does or not. 2.Why do so many Americans not have healthcare?
I know that there is no federally mandated health care plan for the United States.I also know that a disgusting number of people don’t have health care.I know that many senior citizens don’t have coverage that covers their medications so their health is suffering.I know that many children don’t have health care and that many pregnant moms don’t have health care, preventing quality prenatal care.I’d like to find out why the government hasn’t done anything about this.I’d like to learn about some possible solutions to this as well.I want to learn about this issue more because it is very close to my heart.My grandparents don’t have adequate health insurance and it is so incredibly expensive to pay for medication. 3.Should the American soldiers stay in Iraq or come back home?
I know that the soldiers are in Iraq stabilizing the region and trying to set up a democratic government.I know that we have troops stationed all over the world.I’d like to find out what the plans are for either bringing them home or sending more troops over.I’d like to know exactly why they are still over in Iraq.I want to learn this because I am interested in this heated topic.I have a friend whose brother is stationed in Iraq.I have seen firsthand how hard it is on the families and I would like to know why they are still there, especially since we already got rid of Hussein.
In my writing, I feel I use a great deal of logos appeals and do a good job when using them. I could spend more time using ethos appeals in my writing. I use pathos appeals about 50% of the time. I feel that I am really good at giving examples. I tend to use many in my writing. I am also good at being level-headed when making an argument. I show both sides and then say why my side is right. The author of my article, Charles Krauthammer, spends the majority of his writing using logos appeals. In the beginning, he uses ethos appeals. After developing a positive ethos, he moves into mainly logos appeals. Some of the appeals, I believe, double as both logos and pathos appeals. He uses many examples, including things that have happened to him. He makes himself a very credible source, with a fair-minded arugment. In my opinion, that makes for a great writer.
Alex Korell
ENG 101.13
Mary Wendt
A2
January 21, 2008
According to Alicia Suenaga, the author of “Should English Be The Official Language?” posted on , English should be the official language of the United States, but should not be the only language. Suenaga states that not speaking other languages would be damaging to the economy, the ability of students to learn, and would defy the creators of our country. Suenaga makes the point that thieves prey on people who do not speak English, identifying them as an easy mark. She wonders if the people behind the English-only movement are afraid of other languages because they gave up their opportunity to learn them. She also says that the English-only group often has terrible English themselves. She ends her blog with a list of words that the English-only movement would have to cut out of their vocabulary. Based on the blog, “Should English be the Official Language?”, Suenaga feels that English should be the official language, but not the only one.
I found the article by Alicia Suenaga to be particularly interesting. I felt her argument for English being the official language to be well-articulated, but not especially well developed. She states her points, but never gives examples to back them up. She states, “Thieves who try to take advantage of people who don’t understand English are one of the reasons it is important to learn it.” Instead of providing an example of this case, she follows with, “They also try to take advantage of the very young and the very old.” Not only does this not demonstrate her point, it breaks it apart. This is the type of logos she uses throughout the blog, ineffective. I find this point to be an attempt at pathos, by playing on people’s feelings of vulnerability. There is never a demonstration of ethos. She never makes a point that shows why the reader should believe what she has to say. The site is very easy to navigate. This makes me think it was made for the regular internet user, not someone who is especially technically savvy. Therefore, the article is written for your average American, not someone overly bright, but not someone who is unintelligent. In sum, I found the article to have good content, but never really persuade.
Article
Alex Korell
ENG 101.13
Mary Wendt
Paper 1
January 24, 2008 English Only: The Bad and the Ugly
"We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house." said Theodore Roosevelt. (English) He said this in 1906. Since then, people have been trying to make English the only language. Having an official language for the country is a good thing. Making the country speak only one language is not.
In this country, there is a movement called English Only. The people behind this movement want to make English the only language spoken in public places. I think that this is absolutely ridiculous. English does not need to be the only language spoken in the United States, a nation built on diversity.
English Only goes against the very founding of this country. We are a melting pot nation; we opened our doors to immigrants from all over the world. We have a bill of rights that states we have freedom of speech. Shouldn’t that extend to all types of speech in all languages? The point of having the bill of rights was to eliminate issues like this. This is the same thing as religious persecution, except it is linguistic persecution.
The English Only movement would eliminate the possibility of learning another language in schools. Studies show that people who are bilingual have stronger brain development, and the earlier children learn a second language, the better. Research from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Applied Linguistics suggests that children who learn a second language are more creative and better at solving complex problems than those who do not. (Spears) It is proven that being multilingual improves learning potential in students. The English Only movement is decreasing our students’ potential. What harm is learning another language actually doing? The answer is none.
English Only advocates respond to the question of why now does English have to be the official language with language diversity is a recent phenomenon in the United States, which the founders never had to cope with. (Crawford) This is not true. Language diversity has been happening in this country since its founding. We are a nation of immigrants. Everyone who lives in America has ancestry that started elsewhere. There have always been little sectors of every city that people speak primarily a non-English language. Why should this have to change? This does not affect anyone. If people want to speak another language in their home, they should be able to. There is no reason the government should have the power—or the right—to say that one language is better than another.
Another response by English Only advocates is that plenty of other countries have designated official languages to manage diversity. Why not the U.S.A.? (Crawford) This logic can be beaten down with the simple, ‘if Pete jumps off the bridge are you going to jump off too?’ Lots of countries do things that America doesn’t do: communism, a limit to the number of children one can have, and a monarchy.
While it is true that English should be spoken by every American citizen, making it the only language won’t speed it up. Bush has repeatedly said that speaking English is the fast track to citizenship. State imposed English-only laws won't speed anyone along that track. A federal English only amendment won't either. (Hutchinson) Forcing people to learn English is only going to make people resist more – especially in the “land of the free”.
English as the official language is very different from English Only. English as the official language still allows people to speak other languages. Not only is English Only foolish, it is proven to inhibit learning. The English Only movement is wrong.
Alex Korell
ENG 101.13
Mary Wendt
1/30/08
A3
A brute is someone who behaves violently repeatedly and without feeling. A brute is someone who lacks respect. A brute is someone who has done a violent action more than once. A brute is someone who shows no feeling, especially remorse, about their actions.
I believe that both the doctor and the patient fit certain aspects of this definition, but I feel that the patient fits all of them. Therefore, the patient is the bigger brute.
“A huge black man is escorted by four policemen into the Emergency Room. He is handcuffed. At the door, the man rears as though to shake off the men who cling to his arms and press him from the rear.” Because he is being escorted by four policemen, it is safe to assume that he has done something violent. Nothing safe or normal entails a four man escort and handcuffs.
“He turns to face the policemen. For him it is not a new challenge. He is scarred as Zulu from his many battles. Almost from habit he ascends to the combat.” All of these sentences show that this is a repeated thing for him. These actions are not out of the norm, they’re almost habitual.
He shows no feeling of remorse or of pleasure or of anything. He just behaves like this is all normal for him. This makes him a brute. He just doesn’t care about the damage that he’s done.
The doctor is brute-like when he stitches the earlobes to the stretcher and when he grins. The things that distinguish him from being a brute are that he seeks pleasure from it and that he feels remorse later. Seeking pleasure from it is cruel, but being cruel and being a brute are two different things. The fact that he feels remorse after the fact also makes him not a brute. A brute doesn’t care about him actions or any of the consequences that come from them.
Journal # 2
1/24/08
I think my points are valid, but my argument could be deeper. I also think I need to work on my organization. My paper definitely needs to be polished. I ffeel my grammar is good and I used the dash, double dash, colon, and semi-colon correctly. I think I used critical thinking and achieved my purpose of proving English only is wrong. I'm not sure i cited properly using MLA. I feel most of my sources are good sources, except Wikipedia. I also think my title is rather creative. Overall, I think my paper is good.
Journal # 3
2/5/08
In my paper on integrity, I don't feel I developed my ethos anywhere near as well as I should have. I never provided any examples that related to me. It is very hard for me to use "I" in a paper because in high school we were never allowed to. This is a habit I will have to break. I feel that my logos is good. It is logical, as is any assumption I drew. My pathos is also good, but could be better. I could have specified more to play on people's emotions. The first argument strategy that I used was defintion. My second paragraph was all about defining the word. I think that this was a good way to start off. I also used deduction, where I gave my generalization and then branched off into my examples proving it. I also used description, in making my examples vivid. I also used refutation in disproving the argument made by English Only advocates.
ENG 101.13
Mary Wendt
A1
March 6, 2008
My proposal for my paper is going to be about the economy.
1. Why the economy is so close to a recession and why has it taken so long for anyone to do anything to fix it?
I know that many people think we are already in a recession and many people say that we are not in a recession. I know that Michigan is in a recession. I know that Congress just passed Bush’s $150 billion Economic Stimulus package. I also know that we have a $12 trillion economy with a $9 trillion deficit. I would like to know why it has taken so long for anyone to admit there is a problem and why it has taken so long to do anything about it. I would like to find out where all the money collected in taxes goes and why there is no money available. I would like to know where the government sends all of its money. I would like to learn what the candidates plan to do to fix the economy if elected. I am interested in this topic because I am a business major and the economy directly affects every American, regardless of if they think it does or not.
2. Why do so many Americans not have healthcare?
I know that there is no federally mandated health care plan for the United States. I also know that a disgusting number of people don’t have health care. I know that many senior citizens don’t have coverage that covers their medications so their health is suffering. I know that many children don’t have health care and that many pregnant moms don’t have health care, preventing quality prenatal care. I’d like to find out why the government hasn’t done anything about this. I’d like to learn about some possible solutions to this as well. I want to learn about this issue more because it is very close to my heart. My grandparents don’t have adequate health insurance and it is so incredibly expensive to pay for medication.
3. Should the American soldiers stay in Iraq or come back home?
I know that the soldiers are in Iraq stabilizing the region and trying to set up a democratic government. I know that we have troops stationed all over the world. I’d like to find out what the plans are for either bringing them home or sending more troops over. I’d like to know exactly why they are still over in Iraq. I want to learn this because I am interested in this heated topic. I have a friend whose brother is stationed in Iraq. I have seen firsthand how hard it is on the families and I would like to know why they are still there, especially since we already got rid of Hussein.
Alexandra's Paper 2 on "integrity"
Journal 1
In my writing, I feel I use a great deal of logos appeals and do a good job when using them. I could spend more time using ethos appeals in my writing. I use pathos appeals about 50% of the time. I feel that I am really good at giving examples. I tend to use many in my writing. I am also good at being level-headed when making an argument. I show both sides and then say why my side is right. The author of my article, Charles Krauthammer, spends the majority of his writing using logos appeals. In the beginning, he uses ethos appeals. After developing a positive ethos, he moves into mainly logos appeals. Some of the appeals, I believe, double as both logos and pathos appeals. He uses many examples, including things that have happened to him. He makes himself a very credible source, with a fair-minded arugment. In my opinion, that makes for a great writer.
Alex Korell
ENG 101.13
Mary Wendt
A2
January 21, 2008
According to Alicia Suenaga, the author of “Should English Be The Official Language?” posted on , English should be the official language of the United States, but should not be the only language. Suenaga states that not speaking other languages would be damaging to the economy, the ability of students to learn, and would defy the creators of our country. Suenaga makes the point that thieves prey on people who do not speak English, identifying them as an easy mark. She wonders if the people behind the English-only movement are afraid of other languages because they gave up their opportunity to learn them. She also says that the English-only group often has terrible English themselves. She ends her blog with a list of words that the English-only movement would have to cut out of their vocabulary. Based on the blog, “Should English be the Official Language?”, Suenaga feels that English should be the official language, but not the only one.
I found the article by Alicia Suenaga to be particularly interesting. I felt her argument for English being the official language to be well-articulated, but not especially well developed. She states her points, but never gives examples to back them up. She states, “Thieves who try to take advantage of people who don’t understand English are one of the reasons it is important to learn it.” Instead of providing an example of this case, she follows with, “They also try to take advantage of the very young and the very old.” Not only does this not demonstrate her point, it breaks it apart. This is the type of logos she uses throughout the blog, ineffective. I find this point to be an attempt at pathos, by playing on people’s feelings of vulnerability. There is never a demonstration of ethos. She never makes a point that shows why the reader should believe what she has to say. The site is very easy to navigate. This makes me think it was made for the regular internet user, not someone who is especially technically savvy. Therefore, the article is written for your average American, not someone overly bright, but not someone who is unintelligent. In sum, I found the article to have good content, but never really persuade.
Article
Alex Korell
ENG 101.13
Mary Wendt
Paper 1
January 24, 2008
English Only: The Bad and the Ugly
"We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house." said Theodore Roosevelt. (English) He said this in 1906. Since then, people have been trying to make English the only language. Having an official language for the country is a good thing. Making the country speak only one language is not.
In this country, there is a movement called English Only. The people behind this movement want to make English the only language spoken in public places. I think that this is absolutely ridiculous. English does not need to be the only language spoken in the United States, a nation built on diversity.
English Only goes against the very founding of this country. We are a melting pot nation; we opened our doors to immigrants from all over the world. We have a bill of rights that states we have freedom of speech. Shouldn’t that extend to all types of speech in all languages? The point of having the bill of rights was to eliminate issues like this. This is the same thing as religious persecution, except it is linguistic persecution.
The English Only movement would eliminate the possibility of learning another language in schools. Studies show that people who are bilingual have stronger brain development, and the earlier children learn a second language, the better. Research from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Applied Linguistics suggests that children who learn a second language are more creative and better at solving complex problems than those who do not. (Spears) It is proven that being multilingual improves learning potential in students. The English Only movement is decreasing our students’ potential. What harm is learning another language actually doing? The answer is none.
English Only advocates respond to the question of why now does English have to be the official language with language diversity is a recent phenomenon in the United States, which the founders never had to cope with. (Crawford) This is not true. Language diversity has been happening in this country since its founding. We are a nation of immigrants. Everyone who lives in America has ancestry that started elsewhere. There have always been little sectors of every city that people speak primarily a non-English language. Why should this have to change? This does not affect anyone. If people want to speak another language in their home, they should be able to. There is no reason the government should have the power—or the right—to say that one language is better than another.
Another response by English Only advocates is that plenty of other countries have designated official languages to manage diversity. Why not the U.S.A.? (Crawford) This logic can be beaten down with the simple, ‘if Pete jumps off the bridge are you going to jump off too?’ Lots of countries do things that America doesn’t do: communism, a limit to the number of children one can have, and a monarchy.
While it is true that English should be spoken by every American citizen, making it the only language won’t speed it up. Bush has repeatedly said that speaking English is the fast track to citizenship. State imposed English-only laws won't speed anyone along that track. A federal English only amendment won't either. (Hutchinson) Forcing people to learn English is only going to make people resist more – especially in the “land of the free”.
English as the official language is very different from English Only. English as the official language still allows people to speak other languages. Not only is English Only foolish, it is proven to inhibit learning. The English Only movement is wrong.
Works Cited Page
Crawford, James. “The Official English Question.” Issues in U.S. Language Policy. 1997. 24 January, 2008. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/ question.htm
“English Only Movement.” Wikipedia. 15 January, 2008. 24 January, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/English-only_movement#_note-0
Hutchinson, Earl. “Bush knows that the Senate's English-only amendments are empty symbolism, at best.” English Only Doesn’t Work. 22 May, 2006. 24 January, 2008. http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/36555/
Spear, Peggy. “Preschools Becoming Multilingual Learning Hub.” The Arizona Republic. 12 July, 2005. 24 January, 2008. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/ 0712secondlanguage0712.html
in·teg·ri·ty
[Origin: 1400–50; late ME integrite < L integritās. See integer, -ity
—Synonyms 1. rectitude, probity, virtue. See honor.—Antonyms 1. dishonesty.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Alex Korell
ENG 101.13
Mary Wendt
1/30/08
A3
A brute is someone who behaves violently repeatedly and without feeling. A brute is someone who lacks respect. A brute is someone who has done a violent action more than once. A brute is someone who shows no feeling, especially remorse, about their actions.
I believe that both the doctor and the patient fit certain aspects of this definition, but I feel that the patient fits all of them. Therefore, the patient is the bigger brute.
“A huge black man is escorted by four policemen into the Emergency Room. He is handcuffed. At the door, the man rears as though to shake off the men who cling to his arms and press him from the rear.” Because he is being escorted by four policemen, it is safe to assume that he has done something violent. Nothing safe or normal entails a four man escort and handcuffs.
“He turns to face the policemen. For him it is not a new challenge. He is scarred as Zulu from his many battles. Almost from habit he ascends to the combat.” All of these sentences show that this is a repeated thing for him. These actions are not out of the norm, they’re almost habitual.
He shows no feeling of remorse or of pleasure or of anything. He just behaves like this is all normal for him. This makes him a brute. He just doesn’t care about the damage that he’s done.
The doctor is brute-like when he stitches the earlobes to the stretcher and when he grins. The things that distinguish him from being a brute are that he seeks pleasure from it and that he feels remorse later. Seeking pleasure from it is cruel, but being cruel and being a brute are two different things. The fact that he feels remorse after the fact also makes him not a brute. A brute doesn’t care about him actions or any of the consequences that come from them.
Journal # 2
1/24/08
I think my points are valid, but my argument could be deeper. I also think I need to work on my organization. My paper definitely needs to be polished. I ffeel my grammar is good and I used the dash, double dash, colon, and semi-colon correctly. I think I used critical thinking and achieved my purpose of proving English only is wrong. I'm not sure i cited properly using MLA. I feel most of my sources are good sources, except Wikipedia. I also think my title is rather creative. Overall, I think my paper is good.
Journal # 3
2/5/08
In my paper on integrity, I don't feel I developed my ethos anywhere near as well as I should have. I never provided any examples that related to me. It is very hard for me to use "I" in a paper because in high school we were never allowed to. This is a habit I will have to break. I feel that my logos is good. It is logical, as is any assumption I drew. My pathos is also good, but could be better. I could have specified more to play on people's emotions. The first argument strategy that I used was defintion. My second paragraph was all about defining the word. I think that this was a good way to start off. I also used deduction, where I gave my generalization and then branched off into my examples proving it. I also used description, in making my examples vivid. I also used refutation in disproving the argument made by English Only advocates.